Elections are at the heart of a democratic system. They are the mechanisms that connect the preferences of the general population with public policy. If preferences shift in one direction, electoral choices will shift accordingly and the composition of governmental institutions will change in a manner that will facilitate a shift in policy. In a democratic political system where sovereignty rests with the general population, this is an important way to solidify public support of the government. If people believe that government is responsive to their preferences it is more likely to consider it to be legitimate. If not, public support can diminish and the effectiveness of government can decrease.
In the readings below we will first review what we have covered so far regarding elections in Federalists #10 and 51, plus the Constitution. We will then cover a key design feature of the American electoral system, the fact that it is winner take all. In brief this means that there is only one winner in each race based on whichever candidate gets the most number of votes, rather than a proportional allotment of seats based on the percentage of votes different candidates or parties get. This has serious consequences for the nature of the party system in the United States and which interests are most likely to be heard. Related to this is another design feature, the nature of the various districts that are used to conduct elections and establish the various constituencies that are represented in the different levels in the American system.
Next, we analyze the electoral process and how that has changed over the course of American history. This will include an overview of "king caucus," the national conventions and the primary system. This leads to an overview of the way that elections are conducted in the United States and Texas. We will then cover suffrage, the extent of the right to vote in the United States, and the process by which the right has been expanded over the course of American history. This involves a discussion of the Constitution, including a handful of amendments devoted to the subject, plus a variety of Supreme Court cases involving conflicts over access to the ballot.
The right to vote is one thing, the use of that right is another. Though we have close to universal adult suffrage in the U.S., not everyone votes. Whats more, there are significant variations in what types of individuals vote. We will explore the question of who votes. We will also look at what types of factors determine why the people who vote vote as they do. Elections are a big business. Billions of dollars are spent on elections every cycle. We will cover the changing nature of money in politics and the impact that money has on races. As with suffrage, this also involves Supreme Court decisions because efforts to limit money in politics tend to violate free speech rights. Since the money is being spent on campaigns, this allows us to conclude with a look at campaigns in the United States. We will look at their history and the state of campaigns today. Warning: Not all Elections are Really Elections
I stated above that elections are at the heart of a democratic system. In order to qualify as a democracy, a government has to have elections. No elections, no ability for government to connect with the preferences of the population. But some countries that are not democracies like to present themselves as democracies. Its the hip thing to do. The actual title of North Korea, which many regard as the most totalitarian state in the world, is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. In 2002, Sadamm Hussein was reelected President of Iraq in an election where 100% of the voters turned out, and 100% of them voted for him. Some voters marked their ballots in their own blood. Burma held an election in 1990, but since the people voted to oust the military regime, the results were suspended and the leader of the winning party, Aung San Suu Kyi, is still under house arrest. In 2008, the second round of Zimbabwe's electionswere suspended after repeated violence against the opposition party.
Elections, by themselves, are an insufficient indicator that a viable democracy exists in the country holding the election. In order for elections to be legitimate, they have to be "free, fair and open." They also have to be frequent.
There also has to be some physical evidence that the process is free fair and open. Opposition parties must be allowed to form. The press has to be free, people also have to free to express their opinions and be critical of those in charge. People have to have the right to peacefully assemble and to petition government for a redress of grievances. If these sound familiar it's because the last few are found in the First Amendment. This amendent is vitally important because it provides the basis for the fundamental rights that must exist before a viable democracy can be establised. That said, even in an established democracy, elections can go awry. Corruption and outright theft occurs from time to time. These will be covered below. Review: Federalist #10
We have touched on elections several times this semester. In Federalist #10 we were introduced to the distinction between a pure democracy and a republic. The principle distinction between the two was the type of election used in each. A pure democracy, or a direct democracy, allows individuals "to assemble and administer the government in person." But this creates problems since these systems "can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Direct democracies, we were told, allow majorities to punish minorities by putting their rights to majority vote. This is majority tyranny. It also leads to instability: "turbulence and contention." Solid public policy will be ignored in favor of the whims of the population. The establishment of a republic, where the scheme of representation takes place, solves both problems by placing institutions between the population and the law. Depending on the institution in question, several barriers exist between the voter and the law. This is designed, much like shock absorbers, to allow for stability at the upper levels by smoothing out the turbulence we would expect at the lower levels. It is also designed to ensure that all of the various interests in society are made part of the legislative process. As we discussed before, the more interests brought into play, the less likely a single permanent majority interest will dominate the democratic process and allow for an unpopular minority to have their rights reduced. The republican solution Madison proposes to this problem is in essence an electoral solution. Governmental institutions are designed to contain and absorb the various interests in society. Laws are created, implemented and interpreted by institutions that are only somewhat influenced by the electorate. But this is an elitist solution. The elites who were already in a position to control these institutions were able to control the creation, implementation and adjudication of law.
As America grew, pressures also grew to establish a stronger connection between the people and the law. This was embodied in the Jacksonian and Progressive movements we covered in the previous sections. Jacksonianism was based on the premise that the common man was indeed capable of making rational, reasonable decisions about how a population ought to be governed. The Progressive movement, in part, held that the corruption that existed between government and business was due to the institutions that divorced government from the direct influence of the electorate (the concept of an issue network or an iron triangle is a current manifestation of this relationship). This was the complaint lodged against the constitutional system by the Anti-Federalists. The way to solve it was to remove the institutions that allowed corrupt interests to bypass the interests of the electorate and establish a more direct democracy. The introduction of initiative, referendum, and recall elections were central to this effort, as were their efforts to minimize the control of local party bosses in elections by instituting primary elections, civil service reforms, registration requirements and the anonymous ballot (more on these below). They were also successful in helping ratity the 17th Amendment which allowed for a direct election of Senators rather than have them selected by the State legislatures as originally designed. Though institutions are still a principle check on the preferences of the electorate, modifications have allowed the greater population more input into the governing system. We may wish to debate whether this has been a good thing or a bad thing.
The Texas Constitutional order, as we have covered before, does not have the same number of barriers between it and the electorate. All institutions are elected by the general population. But Texas' laws are not as closely connected to the electorate as they are in the handful of states where progressives were able to pass laws allowing for recalls, initiative and referendum elections. Local governments do allow for these elections, so you can make the arguments that the smaller the level of government, the more democratic it tends to be. Of course, following Madison, you could also argue that the smaller the level of government the more likely the government will allow the majority to abuse the minority.
Federalist #51, which addressed the question of how the separated powers were to be kept separated, also concerned electoral design, though it fell short of specifics. Recall that the way to maintain the separated powers was to establish that each was autonomous. In the words of Madison, each had "a will of its own." This was done by ensuring that each had a connection to the same fountain of authority, the people, through means having no connection whatwever with each other. As we discussed before, this means that each of the governing institutions established in the Constitution is elected -- or selected -- in a completely different way. The precise details we cover again below, but let's reiterate how this is supposed to operate.
In an electoral democracy, the people have periodic opportunities to influence the composition of governmental institutions. In a system of separated powers, this can create a problem because if each of the separated institutions has the same connection with the general population (or any other institution) then the opportunity exists for the separate institutions to become concentrated. The same impulse will flow through each and this impulse will cause each to work together. The ambition of one will no longer work to negate the ambitions of the others, instead they will reinforce each other. Madison would argue that this would enable the powers to become concentrated with tyranny being the inevitable result.
The unique elections of each of the four institutions created in the Constitution, plus the different terms lengths served by each, create a unique connection between the institution and the population. The impulse likely to affect one institution is unlikely to affect another. Below we'll outline in greater detail the nature of the connection between each institution and the people, but here is an overview of the design created in the U.S. Constitution. The House of Representatives is designed to be closest to the population (to act as delegates) with direct elections by the population for two year terms of office. The Senate is designed to be removed from the direct preferences of the population (to act as trustees) by being originally elected by state legislatures to six year overlapping terms. The President is elected by an electoral college to a four year term and the judiciary (the only branch that Madison claims needs "qualifications" for office) is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to lifetime terms. In no way can one sudden shift in public opinion affect all the institutions on the national level.
This is more likely in Texas where all institutions are elected by the population to relatively short terms of office.
An essential feature of American elections is that they are almost all winner take all. This simply means that in each election there is generally one position up for grabs in an election and the candidate with the most votes wins it. This is such a key part of the American electoral system that we cannot imagine of another way to conduct elections, but most other electoral systems use proportional representation. In these systems voters generally cast ballots for political parties that are then alloted a percentage of the seats in a legislature based on the percentage of the total votes they received in the election. If a party received 20% of the vote, they get 20% of the seats. In winner take all elections, voters cast ballots for candidates who compete for one position. They must get a plurality or majority of the vote in order to win. Generally if a candidate gets 20% of the vote they lose. In order to win elections in the United States candidates have to broaden their appeal to a wide variety of people in order to get a higher percentage of the vote, or an outright majority (50% + 1 or greater).
This is an important point because it helps explain why we have only two major parties in the United States. It's not that we only have two major sets of issues, or that every issue salient to the public only has two sides. Its because of the logic created by the winner take all system. Candidates who appeal only to a small percentage of the population seldom win elections. Conversely, interests that only support candidates that focus on their issues to the exclusion of all others lose elections as well. In order to win elections, various discrete groups -- factions -- have to form coalitions in order to get enough support to actually win elections. Over the course of American history, coalitions have formed around two major parties. Currently these are the Democratic and Republican Parties, but there have been others (we cover these in the section on parties). Occasionally voters who identify with one party flirt with a third party candidate (like a Ross Perot or a Ralph Nader) but generally this simply splits the vote for one of the parties and throws the election to the other side. It makes more competitive sense for the memebers of various factions to patch up differences among allies in order to win elections. This leads to two parties composed of unusual alliances. For example, the Republicans have the support of both the business sector and social conservatives, and the Democrats have the support of labor unions and social liberals. There are many differences internally between these two sets of interests, but they tend to smooth these differences out in the interests of competitveness.
If we had a proportional representation system, each of these insterests could form their own competitive political party, but this would require a radical change in the American political system that is highly unlikely to happen.
It is impossible to make sense of the American electoral system without fully understanding the ramifications of this design feature.
Every elected official in the United States represents a constituency within a particular district. The term "district" is commonly used to describe the 435 political subdivisions that make up the United States House of Representatives. They also refer to the 150 political subdivisions in the Texas House, the 31 in the Texas Senate, plus those on the local level -- be it city or county. Additionally the terms can refer to the states that are represented by United States Senators, plus the entire country that is under the authority of the President.
At the base of each of these districts is the fundamental unit of American government and politics, the precinct. The point is that the country is divided up into multiple overlapping districts, this is another way the power in the United States is separated. It is reasonable to think of the national government as representing the accumulated interests of localities in the House, states in the Senate and the nation as a whole in the Presidency. Each of these accumulated interests is a constituency. To be a constituent of an elected representative is to live in the district they represent. If you live in the 14th Congressional District of Texas you are a constituent of Ron Paul. His votes should, ideally, reflect your interests. Beyond that, members of legislatures often engage in constituent service in order to keep the electorate happy enough to discourage opponents from running them and stay in office.
But it is not always true that a specific member of Congress represents the interests of all those who live in his or her district. The concept of a constituent can have multiple meanings, each more restricted than the previous one. The broadest definition is one who lives in the representative's district. A narrower definition would be one who lives in the district and is of the same party, still narrower is one who supported the candidate over other candidates from the same party. Narrower still are those who worked, volunteered and most importantly contributed to the candidate's campaign, especially at its inception.
Most districts are subject to change. In fact the only relatively permanent districts in the U.S. are U.S. Senate districts and the district represented by the president. These are of course state and national boundaries. County boundaries are relatively permanent as well. All others are subject to change, and also subject to political manipulation as a result. In the Article I, Section II of the Constitution the apportionment process is outlined, but nothing is said about districts. Each state shall be apportioned representatives on the basis of their population, as determined in a census held every ten years. That's all. Districts were used by most states, some used at large representation, but eventually all adopted districts. Each representative is drawn from a separate district. This is the mechanism that allows local interests to be represented in the national legislature. After every census, seats a reallocated to the states and each state's legislature establishes a process where all districts are redrawn according to the information obtained from the census.
Another ommission in the Constitution, which follows from the fact that districts are not mentioned concerns the relative size of districts. Since nothing is said mandating that they be roughly equal in size, districts varied in population over time. By the mid 20th Century, some districts had far fewer people in them than others, though they all had the same representation in the legislative assembly. This meant that smaller groups could be stronger than larger groups depending on the nature of the districts. A series of Supreme Court cases dealt with this issue and mandated that when originally designed, districts had to be the same size.
Ideally districts should allow for representation in a legislative institution to reflect the breakdown of opinions, interests and values held by the people. If not, then the legislative institution will not represent the entire population, but rather those who have the power to draw the districts. The term we use to refer to this process is gerrymandering, (also look here) which can defined as the deliberate manipulation of the boundaries of a district in order to influence election outcomes. The term comes from one such attempt, that of Elbridge Gerry, who was a member of the Democrat-Republican Party who used his influence to have most members of the opposition party, the Federalists, packed into a single district. A cartoonist played with the outline of that district and came up with something that looked like a salamander, which he then called a Gerrymander.
This process is called minority vote packing. The majority can limit the voting strength of the minority by limiting the number of districts a member fo the minority can conceivably hold. Another process is called minority vote dilution, or cracking. In this case the majority spreads the minority across various districts to make it unlikely that they can have any representation at all. Since each violates the voting rights of the minority, they have been ruled illegal in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. States, including Texas, which have histories of voting discrimination against racial minorities have to have voting districts pre-cleared by federal judges in order to ensure that race is being used to minimize the number of minority representatives that are likely to be elected given the districts drawn by the legislature.
Problems occur however, as with affirmative action, when efforts to bolster minority representation use race as a criterea for drawing districts. This is called racial, or benign gerrymendering. But the Supreme Court has ruled against the use of race as factor in drawing districts.
Perhaps the most problematic type of gerrymandering is incumbent gerrymandering. Incumbents, the people who hold legislative positions, are also involved in drawing districts, especially their own. It is worth noting that technology has allowed for a wealth of detailed data, down to individual addresses, to be used to draw districts. It is possible to make reasonable inferences about likely voting behavior. Obviously this information can be used for self interested reasons by the incumbent. As a consequence, instead of constituents selecting representatives, representatives select constituents. The high reelection rates of members of the U.S. House of Representatives is a likely consequence of this process and leads some to wonder how effectively Congress actually represents the public. Suffrage
The term suffrage refers to the right to vote. Along with majority rule and minority rights, universal adult suffrage is part of the definition of democracy. If this is indeed true, then the United States has not been a democracy for very long. This is not such a radical thought if you remember the negative things that the founders said about democracy: Samuel Adams stated that "there never was a democracy that did not commit suicide." much of their concern was based on a negative assessment of the general population (we've covered this before). The democratic masses were assumed to be likely to fall for the temptation to use government for their own narrow interests rather than the greater interest of the country. The wealthier, propertied classes were held out as being more likely to resist this temptation and to govern capably. John Jay put it this way: "the people who own the country ought to govern it." The people who have the education and demonstrated ability to govern their own affairs, should be able to govern the country. But it is certainly naive to assume that propertied interests would not also seek to use their influence in government to their own advantage. It is also naive to assume that a country that allowed for peaceful assembly and the right to petition for a redress of grievances, as well as the right to free speech, would not witness calls to expand participation.
After severe restrictions in suffrage -- limited primarily to white, male, property owners -- suffrage has expanded to include most adults. Some limits still exist, including limit on individual with mental deficiencies. Establishing just what a mental defficiency is can be very problematic however. Even more controverisal is the issue of felons. Some states allow incarcerated felons to continue to vote (Maine and Vermont) while other states remove the right permanently. In Texas ex-felons regain the right to vote after serving their sentence and after the probationary period has expired.
This may sound like a silly question to ask in a democracy, given that the right to vote is central to democracy, but nowhere in the Constitution is it clearly stated that individuals possess the right to vote. The language of the amendments linked to above place restrictions on what factors states cannot use to deny the right to vote (race, gender, being between the ages of 18 and 20). but the assumption exists that states can in fact limit the access to the polls. Compare this to the language of the first amendment regarding speech which has a much more absolute sound to it: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
Recent controversies regarding voter ID bills, which require voters to show identification prior to voting, have raised this issue recently because some poor voters do not have ID. If denied the ability to vote due to this, have they been denied a fundamental right? If the right is not clearly stated it is difficutl to make that claim.
From the brief history outlined above, we can see that the ability to participate in elections has expanded over the course of American history. This has impacted the nature of parties in the U.S. as well. This makes sense since both concepts are interrelated. As the right to vote expanded the nature of political parties, and the type of elections they campaigned in, changed as well. What had been a limited, elite driven enterprise, expanded to include a broader slice of the population. Elite parties could be more informal in how they operated, but as suffrage expanded they had to organize more effectively. Party machines arose in the 1830s and dominated politics until the progressives drove changes in the electoral process which weakened parties and strengthened candidates. These reforms included the creation of primary elections which gradually led to the current electoral system, which tends to be dominate by candidates and their consultants. Three stages are listed below. As a point of comparison, you might be interested in this brief description of elections in colonial Virginia.
Here is a similar description of elections in Connecticut when votes were cast publicly. It gives you an idea of the problems that occur when votes are not anonymous. The group can place pressure on the individual:
Prior to 1801, Federalist candidates in Connecticut were rarely contested. This was due, in large part, to the complete lack of secrecy in the voting process. Local elections, held at town meetings, pretty much forced the voters to vote for Federalist candidates or risk being branded troublemakers. Voters were given pieces of paper. One by one, the names of the candidates were read from a list. A voter would hand in one of their pieces of paper when the name of the candidate they wanted to vote for was called off. By always listing the Federalist candidates first, it was obvious that anyone still holding a piece of paper after all the Federalists' names had been called hadn't voted for a Federalist. In 1801, the first Republican candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor appeared on the ballot. The Republicans received only a small fraction of the vote, and only 33 of 200 seats in the Assembly, but the Federalists considered this enough of a threat to change the election process to further discourage Republican candidates. Up until this time, although the actual vote was far from secret, the nomination process had been done by secret ballot. In 1801 the law was changed to make nominations public as well.
Stage 1 - Elite Politics. Early elections were limited to elites and were largely informal since there was little need for the rules necessary to organize large groups of people. Candidates for the presidency were selected by members of Congress through a process called "King Caucus." The members of Congress from each party would nominate individuals to be candidates presented to the Electoral College for the presidency. Obviously this not only removes the public from any direct input on who becomes president (which was part of the point behind the design of the electoral college) but it also placed an additional barrier on the general population's preferences because it limited the selection of the president to those individuals who were favored by members of Congress. The legislature became the beneficiary as it attained an additional power over the executive branch.
The blatant elitism of this system became increasingly obvious and candidates began avoiding this nominating system, prefering to appeal directly to the population. The final election where this system was used effectively was the election 1824, where John Quincy Adams, thanks to his connections in Congress, was able to defeat Andrew Jackson despite Jackson's having won the plurality of both the popular and electoral college vote. Not having a majority, the final decision fell to House of Representatives, which elected Adams. Jackson began vigorously campaigning outside DC and was successful in leading to the evolution of mass political parties (specifically the Democrats) and the development of the party nominating convention as the key mechanism for presenting candidates before the electoral college.
Stage 2 - Mass, Party Machine Politics. The elite politics that were common in the early years of the American republic died out as the country grew westward. The "common man" was the individual most likely to move west since there were few opportunities for political and social advancement in the more rigid east. They took with them the idea that they should be able to participate politically even if they lacked the property qualifications necessary in the east. This was covered above as the first of the expansions of suffrage. Here we cover it as one of the factors peading to the development of large scale mass parties. As suffrage expanded, and the country with it, larger more organized parties became necessary in order to organize the political universe. In various cities, parties turned into political machines that could tightly control government within that city by controling how elections were conducted and jobs were dispursed. This also applied to how presidential candidates were selected. Nominating elections every four years were necessary events where the leaders of the different local parties could meet under one roof, establish a party platform and select a candidate not only committed to the platform, but likely to be competitive in the election.
The nominating conventions of this era are far different than those held today. Teams of delegates from the states were taken to the conventions and were usually controlled by a party leader or boss of some sort. These bosses often met in secret and bargained to determine who they would commit to support. They were commonly, and often appropriately, accused of corruption. Perhaps the most famous in history was New York's Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed. It was not unusual for dozens of votes in conventions to be taken before a candidate was agreed upon. But the final selection was almost inevitably someone that the party bosses selected.
Stage 3: Mass, Candidate Centered Politics. Party machines, though they were effective means of bringing people into the political system, were often corrupt. One of the goals of the Progressive movement was to minimize their power. This was done through a variety of means including requiring voters to register before election day and mandating the use of anolymous ballots so people couldn't be pressured to vote a certain way. They also pushed for the use of primary elections, as a way to select candidates for the general election, not just for the presidency but for all other positions as well. Nominating conventions were still held, and are still held every four years, but they lack the power and intuige that they once had. Primary elections allow primary voters to make the decision about who the party candidates are. This process has allowed voters to have greater influence over candidates and has also made candidates sometimes more important in an election than the party themselves.The primary election process took several electoral cycles to catch on and have an influence on presidential campaigns, but currently, almost all state parties assign delegates to presidnetial candidates in primary elections. Those that do not use closed door caucus meetings.
In a primary election, voters who identify with each party vote in an election where individual compete to represent the party in the general election. In the Republican Primary, Republican voters select between various Republican candidates and the winner competes in the general election, generally against the candidate who wins the Democratic Primary. in Texas, the winner of each primary must win with a majority of the vote. Whenever there are several candidates for the position, it is unlikely for there to be a majority winner, so the top two candidates compete in a run-off election. The run-off elections allows the various factions that cluster around the different candidates to reconcile so the party can be compettitive in the general election. Votes for non-presidential primary candidates go directly to the candidiate, but in presidential primaries, voters actually vote for delegates who are then pledged to vote for the candidate in the nominating convention.
The calendar for primary elections varies from election to election, but they are usually held between January and June preceeding the November election. Presidential candidiates within a party must assemble their own campaign teams apart from the party, which requires them to develop an identity independent of the party. The primary system facilitates the rise of candidiates as independent entities because candidates have to find a way to distinguish themselves from their competitors.
There are various types of primaries, most fall under one of two broad types: open and closed. An open primary allows voters to vote in either, but not both, party's primary. A closed primary requires one to register ahead of time as a member of one party in order to vote in it. Texas has a modified closed primary. It does not require voters to reqister ahead of tiem as a member of either party, but once one votes in one party's primary one can only vote in run-off for that party. By voting, for example, as a Democrat in one primary, one has committed to that party for that election cycle. Of course you can vote for whoever you want in the general election, but a person who votes in the Democratic primary cannot vote in the Republican Primary run-off.
Primary elections have had unusual consequences for American politics. The voters who turn out for primary elections tend to be substantively different than those who vote in general elections. They tend to more more partisan, ideologically extreme, and committed to specific issues. Moderates, especially people who claim to not be alligned to either political party, tend not to vote in primaries. The consequence is that party primaries are argued to lead to the nomination of politically polarized general election candidates and has driven moderates off the political stage.
They have also been argued to have weakened political parties excessively and minimized the ability of parties to serve their most essential function, to recruit people into the political process. Candidate centered politics has transformed parties, and made the individuals and his or her team often more important than the party, at least in the short term.
- The Anonymous Ballot
- Registration Requirements
- Primary Elections
- Civil Service Reforms
Voter Turnout
It's one thing to have the right to vote, another to use it. Ironically, as suffrage has expanded, voting turnout has declined. Some consider this a travesty. Generations of disenfrachised groups fought for the right to vote and now their descendants disregard it.
Low voter turnout has been taken to be sign that the health of American democracy is declining. Though the last two presidential elections had unusually high turnout, most elections in the past several decades have had turnout hovering between 50% and 55%. This is in contrast to turnout around 80% in many decades in the 19th Century. Turnout in mid-term elections (when a presidential race is not occuring) tends to be even lower, sometimes around 30%. Turnout in state and local races can be even lower, sometimes in the single digits for special elections. One problem with turnout this low is that the results will not reflect the interests of the electorate, only the interests of those who turnout. Of course people choose not to turnout, so perhaps this isn't such a problem. But if people do not turnout because they are apathetic, what does this say about the vitality of the democratic public?
Perhaps the elitists who argued in favor of property rights restrictions had a point. These individuals might argue that low voter turnout can be a good thing if those who do not bother to become involved, and perhaps also learn a few things about the issues at play in an election, not muddy the waters by voting. Others argue that the very act of voting ties people into the system and makes them wants to learn more about public issues and follow the actions of the people they voted for. A key dispute centers on why people choose not to vote. Is it because they are disillusioned with the process or because they are satisfied with their lives and see no reason to vote? The lowest turnout in a recent presidential election was in 1996 when less than 50% of the population voted in Clinton's re-election. This was far fewer than the more than 60% who voted in the 2008 election. In fact 35 million more people voted in 2008 than in 1996. Why? In 1996 the economy was doing well and we were not at war. Political skirmishes swirled around Clinton's presidency, but substantively the country was doign pretty well. Contrast that with the fear of an economic depression and the ongoing conflict in Iraq that accompanied the 2008 election. Maybe low voter turnout is a sign that people are doing well and have other things to worry about. This is a subject that occupies some political scientists.
Who Votes?
One reason why it might be rational to vote is to think of voting as a group activity rather than an individual activity. Certain groups in American politics are far more likely to vote than others. Older people vote at higher rates than younger people; the wealthy vote more than the vote; the college educated more than those with less than a high school education; and Anglos and African-Americans vote more than Hispanics and Asian-Americans. These disparities can help explain why some groups do better politically than others. Elected officials are well aware of who votes, and who does not, and takes this into consideration when deciding how to vote on legislation, or what legislation to introduce. It is assumed that elected officials are highly focused on re-election. They will do whatever is necessary to ensure that they get re-elected. This means serving the interests of those who vote, not those who do not. Taken this way, voter turnout suddenly becomes rational, no matter who gets elected, because it demonstrates group strength. Why do so many policies favor older Americans and harm younger Americans (think of the debt) because older Americans vote and younger Americans do not.
Random Issues:
Is Voting Rational?
But there is another factor that encourages people to not vote. Not voting is rational, which means of course that voting is irrational. If we assume that it is rational for someone to perform an act with the expectation that it will have an impact (like studying for a test with the expectation that this will lead to a better grade). Then this assumes that we vote with the expectation that our individual vote is necessary in order to get someone elected. If we had not voted, then the result would have been different. But in almost every election, this is not the case, and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be the case in elections like those for the president. If you supported John McCain in 2008 but did not vote, you aren't walking around kicking yourself because your single vote would not have made a difference in the election. So the interesting question is why voters choose to behave irrationally. Why do people vote even though they know there is no way that their single vote matters.
Different elections actually have a tendency to produce different winners.
Voting Behavior
So let's say that you have choosen to do the irrational thing and have decided to go vote. What factors guide your decision? Research suggest that there are three primary factors guiding the decision about who to vote for.
- Party Identification
- Candidate Characteristics
- Issue
Party Identification: Though party identification has declined over time, it is still an important determinant of the vote. More people are indeed calling themselves independent and splitting their votes, but people who identify with either major political party are highly likely to vote for candidates from that party. Being Democrat or Republican still gives voters a general idea about where the candidates stand on the issues and if one knows nothing else about the candidates it can still be a useful cost saving way to make a decision about who to support. Nevertheless, party identification lags far behind the levels of strength it enjoyed before candidates could forge their own relatonships with the public.
Candidate Characteristics: As mentioned above in the discussion of primaries, the primary process has brought candidates to the forefront of elections. While running for their own party's primaries candidates are able to establish their own identities with the general public, not just those who identify with their party. Strong candidates have appeal that transcends their own party and reaches out not only to independents but to members of the other party. Reagan, for example, was popular among some Democrats and Obama earned some Republican votes. Their appeal can be based on personality characteristics which are much more easily conveyed through television and online. FDR's calm during the Great Depression, and translated in the Fire Side Chats, made him a more appealing candidate than the more uptight, reserved Hoover.
Sometimes these characteristics can include superficial things such as height and hair. Recent presidential elections have been won, almost always, by the taller cnadidate and/or the candidate with the more impressive head of hair. Short, bald candidates are at a disadvantag, seriously.
Issues: Over the years the Democratic and Republican Parties have developed reputations for being better at certain things than the other party. This has an impact on electoral choice, espacially among independent that tend to not have a preset idea about which party they will vote for. Republicans tend to be trusted more during times of military crisis, or when America feels under attack, while Democrats do better during times of economic crisis. Applying this to recent elections, once the 9/11 attacks occurred, the Republican Party gained an advantage in the following election, as did Democrats when the housing bubble burst prior to the 2008 elections. This suggests that elections may be decided more by events than candidates or political tactics.
Managing Elections
The Constitution, in several places, grants states the power to conduct and manage elections to the states. In Texas, the Secretary of State's Elections Division has this responsibility. Many of the specific responsibilities, including registering voters, organizing voter precincts, running election day and counting ballots, is given to the county.
In order to both facilitate access to the polls and to ensure fair voting practices, the national government has become increasingly involved in assisting the conduction of elections nationwide. Most recently, in the wake of the controversial election of 2000, the Help America Vote Act was passed, which created the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission in order to implement this assistance.
Elections cost a lot of money. This is probably not news to you. House races can easily cost over a million dollars and Senate races generally run more than 10 million dollars. Many cost far more. In the 2008 presidential election Obama raised almost $750 million.
Large sums are not new in elections, neither are questions about the propriety of these expenditures. Below is a list of the various laws passed by the U.S. Congress adressing the following issues (as defined by the Federal Election Commission):
- Limit contributions to ensure that wealthy individuals and special interest groups did not have a disproportionate influence on Federal elections;
- Prohibit certain sources of funds for Federal campaign purposes;
- Control campaign spending; and
- Require public disclosure of campaign finances to deter abuse and to educate the electorate.
The problem with limiting campaign expenditures however is that those affected by these laws have successfully argued that doing so limits their free speech rights. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that campaign expenditures are equivalent to free speech since the purpose of the expeditures is to communicate political ideas to the general public.
1. Elections are central to democracy, but why is this the case? Read the material below and detail what elections are supposed to do in a democratic system. Are these purposes being served currently? Why or why not?
2. Some argue that the American electoral system places voters too far from the action and that we should have, instead, a more direct system such as an initiative or referendum system on the national level. Explore this idea and detail the advantages and disadvantages of doing so.
3. Over the course of American history suffrage has been expanded substantively, but there are still some limitations on who can vote. What are these limitations and what are the arguments for and against further expanding suffrage? Are these similar to the arguments for and against previsou expansions of suffrage?
4. As you hopefully know, there are elections currently underway, mostly local. Do some research and list the most topical races in your local area and the stakes involved in the outcomes.
Slightly revised slides:
Goals: After Reading through this material you should comfortable with the following questions:
Relevant Blog Tags: These will take you to previous posts on my blog which relate to some of the subject matter conatined in this section.
Introduction
Elections are at the heart of a democratic system. They are the mechanisms that connect the preferences of the general population with public policy. If preferences shift in one direction, electoral choices will shift accordingly and the composition of governmental institutions will change in a manner that will facilitate a shift in policy. In a democratic political system where sovereignty rests with the general population, this is an important way to solidify public support of the government. If people believe that government is responsive to their preferences it is more likely to consider it to be legitimate. If not, public support can diminish and the effectiveness of government can decrease.
In the readings below we will first review what we have covered so far regarding elections in Federalists #10 and 51, plus the Constitution. We will then cover a key design feature of the American electoral system, the fact that it is winner take all. In brief this means that there is only one winner in each race based on whichever candidate gets the most number of votes, rather than a proportional allotment of seats based on the percentage of votes different candidates or parties get. This has serious consequences for the nature of the party system in the United States and which interests are most likely to be heard. Related to this is another design feature, the nature of the various districts that are used to conduct elections and establish the various constituencies that are represented in the different levels in the American system.
Next, we analyze the electoral process and how that has changed over the course of American history. This will include an overview of "king caucus," the national conventions and the primary system. This leads to an overview of the way that elections are conducted in the United States and Texas. We will then cover suffrage, the extent of the right to vote in the United States, and the process by which the right has been expanded over the course of American history. This involves a discussion of the Constitution, including a handful of amendments devoted to the subject, plus a variety of Supreme Court cases involving conflicts over access to the ballot.
The right to vote is one thing, the use of that right is another. Though we have close to universal adult suffrage in the U.S., not everyone votes. Whats more, there are significant variations in what types of individuals vote. We will explore the question of who votes. We will also look at what types of factors determine why the people who vote vote as they do. Elections are a big business. Billions of dollars are spent on elections every cycle. We will cover the changing nature of money in politics and the impact that money has on races. As with suffrage, this also involves Supreme Court decisions because efforts to limit money in politics tend to violate free speech rights. Since the money is being spent on campaigns, this allows us to conclude with a look at campaigns in the United States. We will look at their history and the state of campaigns today.
Warning: Not all Elections are Really Elections
I stated above that elections are at the heart of a democratic system. In order to qualify as a democracy, a government has to have elections. No elections, no ability for government to connect with the preferences of the population. But some countries that are not democracies like to present themselves as democracies. Its the hip thing to do. The actual title of North Korea, which many regard as the most totalitarian state in the world, is The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. In 2002, Sadamm Hussein was reelected President of Iraq in an election where 100% of the voters turned out, and 100% of them voted for him. Some voters marked their ballots in their own blood. Burma held an election in 1990, but since the people voted to oust the military regime, the results were suspended and the leader of the winning party, Aung San Suu Kyi, is still under house arrest. In 2008, the second round of Zimbabwe's electionswere suspended after repeated violence against the opposition party.
Elections, by themselves, are an insufficient indicator that a viable democracy exists in the country holding the election. In order for elections to be legitimate, they have to be "free, fair and open." They also have to be frequent.
There also has to be some physical evidence that the process is free fair and open. Opposition parties must be allowed to form. The press has to be free, people also have to free to express their opinions and be critical of those in charge. People have to have the right to peacefully assemble and to petition government for a redress of grievances. If these sound familiar it's because the last few are found in the First Amendment. This amendent is vitally important because it provides the basis for the fundamental rights that must exist before a viable democracy can be establised. That said, even in an established democracy, elections can go awry. Corruption and outright theft occurs from time to time. These will be covered below.
Review: Federalist #10
We have touched on elections several times this semester. In Federalist #10 we were introduced to the distinction between a pure democracy and a republic. The principle distinction between the two was the type of election used in each. A pure democracy, or a direct democracy, allows individuals "to assemble and administer the government in person." But this creates problems since these systems "can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Direct democracies, we were told, allow majorities to punish minorities by putting their rights to majority vote. This is majority tyranny. It also leads to instability: "turbulence and contention." Solid public policy will be ignored in favor of the whims of the population. The establishment of a republic, where the scheme of representation takes place, solves both problems by placing institutions between the population and the law. Depending on the institution in question, several barriers exist between the voter and the law. This is designed, much like shock absorbers, to allow for stability at the upper levels by smoothing out the turbulence we would expect at the lower levels. It is also designed to ensure that all of the various interests in society are made part of the legislative process. As we discussed before, the more interests brought into play, the less likely a single permanent majority interest will dominate the democratic process and allow for an unpopular minority to have their rights reduced. The republican solution Madison proposes to this problem is in essence an electoral solution. Governmental institutions are designed to contain and absorb the various interests in society. Laws are created, implemented and interpreted by institutions that are only somewhat influenced by the electorate. But this is an elitist solution. The elites who were already in a position to control these institutions were able to control the creation, implementation and adjudication of law.
As America grew, pressures also grew to establish a stronger connection between the people and the law. This was embodied in the Jacksonian and Progressive movements we covered in the previous sections. Jacksonianism was based on the premise that the common man was indeed capable of making rational, reasonable decisions about how a population ought to be governed. The Progressive movement, in part, held that the corruption that existed between government and business was due to the institutions that divorced government from the direct influence of the electorate (the concept of an issue network or an iron triangle is a current manifestation of this relationship). This was the complaint lodged against the constitutional system by the Anti-Federalists. The way to solve it was to remove the institutions that allowed corrupt interests to bypass the interests of the electorate and establish a more direct democracy. The introduction of initiative, referendum, and recall elections were central to this effort, as were their efforts to minimize the control of local party bosses in elections by instituting primary elections, civil service reforms, registration requirements and the anonymous ballot (more on these below). They were also successful in helping ratity the 17th Amendment which allowed for a direct election of Senators rather than have them selected by the State legislatures as originally designed. Though institutions are still a principle check on the preferences of the electorate, modifications have allowed the greater population more input into the governing system. We may wish to debate whether this has been a good thing or a bad thing.
The Texas Constitutional order, as we have covered before, does not have the same number of barriers between it and the electorate. All institutions are elected by the general population. But Texas' laws are not as closely connected to the electorate as they are in the handful of states where progressives were able to pass laws allowing for recalls, initiative and referendum elections. Local governments do allow for these elections, so you can make the arguments that the smaller the level of government, the more democratic it tends to be. Of course, following Madison, you could also argue that the smaller the level of government the more likely the government will allow the majority to abuse the minority.
For futher reading:
- direct democracy
- democracy
- representative democracy
- majority rule
- minority rights
Review: Federalist #51
Federalist #51, which addressed the question of how the separated powers were to be kept separated, also concerned electoral design, though it fell short of specifics. Recall that the way to maintain the separated powers was to establish that each was autonomous. In the words of Madison, each had "a will of its own." This was done by ensuring that each had a connection to the same fountain of authority, the people, through means having no connection whatwever with each other. As we discussed before, this means that each of the governing institutions established in the Constitution is elected -- or selected -- in a completely different way. The precise details we cover again below, but let's reiterate how this is supposed to operate.
In an electoral democracy, the people have periodic opportunities to influence the composition of governmental institutions. In a system of separated powers, this can create a problem because if each of the separated institutions has the same connection with the general population (or any other institution) then the opportunity exists for the separate institutions to become concentrated. The same impulse will flow through each and this impulse will cause each to work together. The ambition of one will no longer work to negate the ambitions of the others, instead they will reinforce each other. Madison would argue that this would enable the powers to become concentrated with tyranny being the inevitable result.
The unique elections of each of the four institutions created in the Constitution, plus the different terms lengths served by each, create a unique connection between the institution and the population. The impulse likely to affect one institution is unlikely to affect another. Below we'll outline in greater detail the nature of the connection between each institution and the people, but here is an overview of the design created in the U.S. Constitution. The House of Representatives is designed to be closest to the population (to act as delegates) with direct elections by the population for two year terms of office. The Senate is designed to be removed from the direct preferences of the population (to act as trustees) by being originally elected by state legislatures to six year overlapping terms. The President is elected by an electoral college to a four year term and the judiciary (the only branch that Madison claims needs "qualifications" for office) is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to lifetime terms. In no way can one sudden shift in public opinion affect all the institutions on the national level.
This is more likely in Texas where all institutions are elected by the population to relatively short terms of office.
Additional Reading:
- The Pros and Cons of Term Limits.
Winner Take All and Proportional Representation Elections
An essential feature of American elections is that they are almost all winner take all. This simply means that in each election there is generally one position up for grabs in an election and the candidate with the most votes wins it. This is such a key part of the American electoral system that we cannot imagine of another way to conduct elections, but most other electoral systems use proportional representation. In these systems voters generally cast ballots for political parties that are then alloted a percentage of the seats in a legislature based on the percentage of the total votes they received in the election. If a party received 20% of the vote, they get 20% of the seats. In winner take all elections, voters cast ballots for candidates who compete for one position. They must get a plurality or majority of the vote in order to win. Generally if a candidate gets 20% of the vote they lose. In order to win elections in the United States candidates have to broaden their appeal to a wide variety of people in order to get a higher percentage of the vote, or an outright majority (50% + 1 or greater).
This is an important point because it helps explain why we have only two major parties in the United States. It's not that we only have two major sets of issues, or that every issue salient to the public only has two sides. Its because of the logic created by the winner take all system. Candidates who appeal only to a small percentage of the population seldom win elections. Conversely, interests that only support candidates that focus on their issues to the exclusion of all others lose elections as well. In order to win elections, various discrete groups -- factions -- have to form coalitions in order to get enough support to actually win elections. Over the course of American history, coalitions have formed around two major parties. Currently these are the Democratic and Republican Parties, but there have been others (we cover these in the section on parties). Occasionally voters who identify with one party flirt with a third party candidate (like a Ross Perot or a Ralph Nader) but generally this simply splits the vote for one of the parties and throws the election to the other side. It makes more competitive sense for the memebers of various factions to patch up differences among allies in order to win elections. This leads to two parties composed of unusual alliances. For example, the Republicans have the support of both the business sector and social conservatives, and the Democrats have the support of labor unions and social liberals. There are many differences internally between these two sets of interests, but they tend to smooth these differences out in the interests of competitveness.
If we had a proportional representation system, each of these insterests could form their own competitive political party, but this would require a radical change in the American political system that is highly unlikely to happen.
It is impossible to make sense of the American electoral system without fully understanding the ramifications of this design feature.
For further reading:
- proportional representation
- winner take all elections (plurality winner)
Districts, Precincts, and Constituents
Every elected official in the United States represents a constituency within a particular district. The term "district" is commonly used to describe the 435 political subdivisions that make up the United States House of Representatives. They also refer to the 150 political subdivisions in the Texas House, the 31 in the Texas Senate, plus those on the local level -- be it city or county. Additionally the terms can refer to the states that are represented by United States Senators, plus the entire country that is under the authority of the President.
At the base of each of these districts is the fundamental unit of American government and politics, the precinct. The point is that the country is divided up into multiple overlapping districts, this is another way the power in the United States is separated. It is reasonable to think of the national government as representing the accumulated interests of localities in the House, states in the Senate and the nation as a whole in the Presidency. Each of these accumulated interests is a constituency. To be a constituent of an elected representative is to live in the district they represent. If you live in the 14th Congressional District of Texas you are a constituent of Ron Paul. His votes should, ideally, reflect your interests. Beyond that, members of legislatures often engage in constituent service in order to keep the electorate happy enough to discourage opponents from running them and stay in office.
But it is not always true that a specific member of Congress represents the interests of all those who live in his or her district. The concept of a constituent can have multiple meanings, each more restricted than the previous one. The broadest definition is one who lives in the representative's district. A narrower definition would be one who lives in the district and is of the same party, still narrower is one who supported the candidate over other candidates from the same party. Narrower still are those who worked, volunteered and most importantly contributed to the candidate's campaign, especially at its inception.
Most districts are subject to change. In fact the only relatively permanent districts in the U.S. are U.S. Senate districts and the district represented by the president. These are of course state and national boundaries. County boundaries are relatively permanent as well. All others are subject to change, and also subject to political manipulation as a result. In the Article I, Section II of the Constitution the apportionment process is outlined, but nothing is said about districts. Each state shall be apportioned representatives on the basis of their population, as determined in a census held every ten years. That's all. Districts were used by most states, some used at large representation, but eventually all adopted districts. Each representative is drawn from a separate district. This is the mechanism that allows local interests to be represented in the national legislature. After every census, seats a reallocated to the states and each state's legislature establishes a process where all districts are redrawn according to the information obtained from the census.
Another ommission in the Constitution, which follows from the fact that districts are not mentioned concerns the relative size of districts. Since nothing is said mandating that they be roughly equal in size, districts varied in population over time. By the mid 20th Century, some districts had far fewer people in them than others, though they all had the same representation in the legislative assembly. This meant that smaller groups could be stronger than larger groups depending on the nature of the districts. A series of Supreme Court cases dealt with this issue and mandated that when originally designed, districts had to be the same size.
See the following:
- Baker v. Carr.
- Reynolds v. Sims.
Ideally districts should allow for representation in a legislative institution to reflect the breakdown of opinions, interests and values held by the people. If not, then the legislative institution will not represent the entire population, but rather those who have the power to draw the districts. The term we use to refer to this process is gerrymandering, (also look here) which can defined as the deliberate manipulation of the boundaries of a district in order to influence election outcomes. The term comes from one such attempt, that of Elbridge Gerry, who was a member of the Democrat-Republican Party who used his influence to have most members of the opposition party, the Federalists, packed into a single district. A cartoonist played with the outline of that district and came up with something that looked like a salamander, which he then called a Gerrymander.
This process is called minority vote packing. The majority can limit the voting strength of the minority by limiting the number of districts a member fo the minority can conceivably hold. Another process is called minority vote dilution, or cracking. In this case the majority spreads the minority across various districts to make it unlikely that they can have any representation at all. Since each violates the voting rights of the minority, they have been ruled illegal in the Voting Rights Act of 1965. States, including Texas, which have histories of voting discrimination against racial minorities have to have voting districts pre-cleared by federal judges in order to ensure that race is being used to minimize the number of minority representatives that are likely to be elected given the districts drawn by the legislature.
Problems occur however, as with affirmative action, when efforts to bolster minority representation use race as a criterea for drawing districts. This is called racial, or benign gerrymendering. But the Supreme Court has ruled against the use of race as factor in drawing districts.
See the following:
- Shaw v. Reno.
- Miller v. Johnson.
Perhaps the most problematic type of gerrymandering is incumbent gerrymandering. Incumbents, the people who hold legislative positions, are also involved in drawing districts, especially their own. It is worth noting that technology has allowed for a wealth of detailed data, down to individual addresses, to be used to draw districts. It is possible to make reasonable inferences about likely voting behavior. Obviously this information can be used for self interested reasons by the incumbent. As a consequence, instead of constituents selecting representatives, representatives select constituents. The high reelection rates of members of the U.S. House of Representatives is a likely consequence of this process and leads some to wonder how effectively Congress actually represents the public.
Suffrage
The term suffrage refers to the right to vote. Along with majority rule and minority rights, universal adult suffrage is part of the definition of democracy. If this is indeed true, then the United States has not been a democracy for very long. This is not such a radical thought if you remember the negative things that the founders said about democracy: Samuel Adams stated that "there never was a democracy that did not commit suicide." much of their concern was based on a negative assessment of the general population (we've covered this before). The democratic masses were assumed to be likely to fall for the temptation to use government for their own narrow interests rather than the greater interest of the country. The wealthier, propertied classes were held out as being more likely to resist this temptation and to govern capably. John Jay put it this way: "the people who own the country ought to govern it." The people who have the education and demonstrated ability to govern their own affairs, should be able to govern the country. But it is certainly naive to assume that propertied interests would not also seek to use their influence in government to their own advantage. It is also naive to assume that a country that allowed for peaceful assembly and the right to petition for a redress of grievances, as well as the right to free speech, would not witness calls to expand participation.
After severe restrictions in suffrage -- limited primarily to white, male, property owners -- suffrage has expanded to include most adults. Some limits still exist, including limit on individual with mental deficiencies. Establishing just what a mental defficiency is can be very problematic however. Even more controverisal is the issue of felons. Some states allow incarcerated felons to continue to vote (Maine and Vermont) while other states remove the right permanently. In Texas ex-felons regain the right to vote after serving their sentence and after the probationary period has expired.
- ProCon.org: State Felon Voting Laws.
Here is a list of when different groups of people were granted suffrage and links to additional information regarding the expansion for each.
1820s - 1830s: Non-Property Owners: separate actions in state legislatures, mostly in the 1820s and 1830s.
- James Madison: Note on his Speech on the Right of Suffrage.
- American Suffrage: From Property to Democracy, 1760-1860.
1870: Race: The 15th Amendment, not enforced until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
1920: Gender: The 19th Amendment.
1961: The District of Columbia: The 23rd Amendment
1964: The Poor (the poll tax is outlawed): The 24th Amendment.
1971: The Young: The 26th Amendment.
Is Voting a Fundamental Right?
This may sound like a silly question to ask in a democracy, given that the right to vote is central to democracy, but nowhere in the Constitution is it clearly stated that individuals possess the right to vote. The language of the amendments linked to above place restrictions on what factors states cannot use to deny the right to vote (race, gender, being between the ages of 18 and 20). but the assumption exists that states can in fact limit the access to the polls. Compare this to the language of the first amendment regarding speech which has a much more absolute sound to it: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
Recent controversies regarding voter ID bills, which require voters to show identification prior to voting, have raised this issue recently because some poor voters do not have ID. If denied the ability to vote due to this, have they been denied a fundamental right? If the right is not clearly stated it is difficutl to make that claim.
- Pwe Research Center: Voter ID Laws.
- Brennan Center for Justice: Voter ID.
- The Nation: The Right to Vote.
- The Journal of Law and Public Policy: Inventing the Right to Vote.
For further reading:
- The Right to Vote. The Contested History of Democracy in the United States.
- James Madison: Note on Suffrage.
- Wikipedia: Voting Rights in the United States.
- Brennan Center: Restoring the Right to Vote to Ex-Felons.
Elite and Mass Politics.
From the brief history outlined above, we can see that the ability to participate in elections has expanded over the course of American history. This has impacted the nature of parties in the U.S. as well. This makes sense since both concepts are interrelated. As the right to vote expanded the nature of political parties, and the type of elections they campaigned in, changed as well. What had been a limited, elite driven enterprise, expanded to include a broader slice of the population. Elite parties could be more informal in how they operated, but as suffrage expanded they had to organize more effectively. Party machines arose in the 1830s and dominated politics until the progressives drove changes in the electoral process which weakened parties and strengthened candidates. These reforms included the creation of primary elections which gradually led to the current electoral system, which tends to be dominate by candidates and their consultants. Three stages are listed below. As a point of comparison, you might be interested in this brief description of elections in colonial Virginia.
Here is a similar description of elections in Connecticut when votes were cast publicly. It gives you an idea of the problems that occur when votes are not anonymous. The group can place pressure on the individual:
Prior to 1801, Federalist candidates in Connecticut were rarely contested. This was due, in large part, to the complete lack of secrecy in the voting process. Local elections, held at town meetings, pretty much forced the voters to vote for Federalist candidates or risk being branded troublemakers. Voters were given pieces of paper. One by one, the names of the candidates were read from a list. A voter would hand in one of their pieces of paper when the name of the candidate they wanted to vote for was called off. By always listing the Federalist candidates first, it was obvious that anyone still holding a piece of paper after all the Federalists' names had been called hadn't voted for a Federalist. In 1801, the first Republican candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Governor appeared on the ballot. The Republicans received only a small fraction of the vote, and only 33 of 200 seats in the Assembly, but the Federalists considered this enough of a threat to change the election process to further discourage Republican candidates. Up until this time, although the actual vote was far from secret, the nomination process had been done by secret ballot. In 1801 the law was changed to make nominations public as well.
- Wikipedia: Inventing Campaign Techniques.
Stage 1 - Elite Politics. Early elections were limited to elites and were largely informal since there was little need for the rules necessary to organize large groups of people. Candidates for the presidency were selected by members of Congress through a process called "King Caucus." The members of Congress from each party would nominate individuals to be candidates presented to the Electoral College for the presidency. Obviously this not only removes the public from any direct input on who becomes president (which was part of the point behind the design of the electoral college) but it also placed an additional barrier on the general population's preferences because it limited the selection of the president to those individuals who were favored by members of Congress. The legislature became the beneficiary as it attained an additional power over the executive branch.
The blatant elitism of this system became increasingly obvious and candidates began avoiding this nominating system, prefering to appeal directly to the population. The final election where this system was used effectively was the election 1824, where John Quincy Adams, thanks to his connections in Congress, was able to defeat Andrew Jackson despite Jackson's having won the plurality of both the popular and electoral college vote. Not having a majority, the final decision fell to House of Representatives, which elected Adams. Jackson began vigorously campaigning outside DC and was successful in leading to the evolution of mass political parties (specifically the Democrats) and the development of the party nominating convention as the key mechanism for presenting candidates before the electoral college.
- Britannia.com: King Caucus.
Stage 2 - Mass, Party Machine Politics. The elite politics that were common in the early years of the American republic died out as the country grew westward. The "common man" was the individual most likely to move west since there were few opportunities for political and social advancement in the more rigid east. They took with them the idea that they should be able to participate politically even if they lacked the property qualifications necessary in the east. This was covered above as the first of the expansions of suffrage. Here we cover it as one of the factors peading to the development of large scale mass parties. As suffrage expanded, and the country with it, larger more organized parties became necessary in order to organize the political universe. In various cities, parties turned into political machines that could tightly control government within that city by controling how elections were conducted and jobs were dispursed. This also applied to how presidential candidates were selected. Nominating elections every four years were necessary events where the leaders of the different local parties could meet under one roof, establish a party platform and select a candidate not only committed to the platform, but likely to be competitive in the election.
The nominating conventions of this era are far different than those held today. Teams of delegates from the states were taken to the conventions and were usually controlled by a party leader or boss of some sort. These bosses often met in secret and bargained to determine who they would commit to support. They were commonly, and often appropriately, accused of corruption. Perhaps the most famous in history was New York's Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed. It was not unusual for dozens of votes in conventions to be taken before a candidate was agreed upon. But the final selection was almost inevitably someone that the party bosses selected.
- Wikipedia: United States Presidential Nominating Conventions.
- Wikipedia: American Election Campaigns in the 19th Century.
- Martin Van Buren: The Original Party Boss.
Stage 3: Mass, Candidate Centered Politics. Party machines, though they were effective means of bringing people into the political system, were often corrupt. One of the goals of the Progressive movement was to minimize their power. This was done through a variety of means including requiring voters to register before election day and mandating the use of anolymous ballots so people couldn't be pressured to vote a certain way. They also pushed for the use of primary elections, as a way to select candidates for the general election, not just for the presidency but for all other positions as well. Nominating conventions were still held, and are still held every four years, but they lack the power and intuige that they once had. Primary elections allow primary voters to make the decision about who the party candidates are. This process has allowed voters to have greater influence over candidates and has also made candidates sometimes more important in an election than the party themselves.The primary election process took several electoral cycles to catch on and have an influence on presidential campaigns, but currently, almost all state parties assign delegates to presidnetial candidates in primary elections. Those that do not use closed door caucus meetings.
In a primary election, voters who identify with each party vote in an election where individual compete to represent the party in the general election. In the Republican Primary, Republican voters select between various Republican candidates and the winner competes in the general election, generally against the candidate who wins the Democratic Primary. in Texas, the winner of each primary must win with a majority of the vote. Whenever there are several candidates for the position, it is unlikely for there to be a majority winner, so the top two candidates compete in a run-off election. The run-off elections allows the various factions that cluster around the different candidates to reconcile so the party can be compettitive in the general election. Votes for non-presidential primary candidates go directly to the candidiate, but in presidential primaries, voters actually vote for delegates who are then pledged to vote for the candidate in the nominating convention.
The calendar for primary elections varies from election to election, but they are usually held between January and June preceeding the November election. Presidential candidiates within a party must assemble their own campaign teams apart from the party, which requires them to develop an identity independent of the party. The primary system facilitates the rise of candidiates as independent entities because candidates have to find a way to distinguish themselves from their competitors.
There are various types of primaries, most fall under one of two broad types: open and closed. An open primary allows voters to vote in either, but not both, party's primary. A closed primary requires one to register ahead of time as a member of one party in order to vote in it. Texas has a modified closed primary. It does not require voters to reqister ahead of tiem as a member of either party, but once one votes in one party's primary one can only vote in run-off for that party. By voting, for example, as a Democrat in one primary, one has committed to that party for that election cycle. Of course you can vote for whoever you want in the general election, but a person who votes in the Democratic primary cannot vote in the Republican Primary run-off.
Primary elections have had unusual consequences for American politics. The voters who turn out for primary elections tend to be substantively different than those who vote in general elections. They tend to more more partisan, ideologically extreme, and committed to specific issues. Moderates, especially people who claim to not be alligned to either political party, tend not to vote in primaries. The consequence is that party primaries are argued to lead to the nomination of politically polarized general election candidates and has driven moderates off the political stage.
They have also been argued to have weakened political parties excessively and minimized the ability of parties to serve their most essential function, to recruit people into the political process. Candidate centered politics has transformed parties, and made the individuals and his or her team often more important than the party, at least in the short term.
- Wikipedia: Primary Elections.
- CRS Report: Presidential Elections in the United States
- Wikipedia: Elections in the United States.
- Wikipedia: List of Elections in The United States.
- Answers.com: Primary Elections.
Progressive Reforms
- The Anonymous Ballot
- Registration Requirements
- Primary Elections
- Civil Service Reforms
Voter Turnout
It's one thing to have the right to vote, another to use it. Ironically, as suffrage has expanded, voting turnout has declined. Some consider this a travesty. Generations of disenfrachised groups fought for the right to vote and now their descendants disregard it.
- Wikipedia: Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections.
- United States Election Project: Voter Turnout.
- U.S. Census Bureau: Voting and Registration Information.
- The Youth Vote in 2004.
Low voter turnout has been taken to be sign that the health of American democracy is declining. Though the last two presidential elections had unusually high turnout, most elections in the past several decades have had turnout hovering between 50% and 55%. This is in contrast to turnout around 80% in many decades in the 19th Century. Turnout in mid-term elections (when a presidential race is not occuring) tends to be even lower, sometimes around 30%. Turnout in state and local races can be even lower, sometimes in the single digits for special elections. One problem with turnout this low is that the results will not reflect the interests of the electorate, only the interests of those who turnout. Of course people choose not to turnout, so perhaps this isn't such a problem. But if people do not turnout because they are apathetic, what does this say about the vitality of the democratic public?
Perhaps the elitists who argued in favor of property rights restrictions had a point. These individuals might argue that low voter turnout can be a good thing if those who do not bother to become involved, and perhaps also learn a few things about the issues at play in an election, not muddy the waters by voting. Others argue that the very act of voting ties people into the system and makes them wants to learn more about public issues and follow the actions of the people they voted for. A key dispute centers on why people choose not to vote. Is it because they are disillusioned with the process or because they are satisfied with their lives and see no reason to vote? The lowest turnout in a recent presidential election was in 1996 when less than 50% of the population voted in Clinton's re-election. This was far fewer than the more than 60% who voted in the 2008 election. In fact 35 million more people voted in 2008 than in 1996. Why? In 1996 the economy was doing well and we were not at war. Political skirmishes swirled around Clinton's presidency, but substantively the country was doign pretty well. Contrast that with the fear of an economic depression and the ongoing conflict in Iraq that accompanied the 2008 election. Maybe low voter turnout is a sign that people are doing well and have other things to worry about. This is a subject that occupies some political scientists.
Who Votes?
One reason why it might be rational to vote is to think of voting as a group activity rather than an individual activity. Certain groups in American politics are far more likely to vote than others. Older people vote at higher rates than younger people; the wealthy vote more than the vote; the college educated more than those with less than a high school education; and Anglos and African-Americans vote more than Hispanics and Asian-Americans. These disparities can help explain why some groups do better politically than others. Elected officials are well aware of who votes, and who does not, and takes this into consideration when deciding how to vote on legislation, or what legislation to introduce. It is assumed that elected officials are highly focused on re-election. They will do whatever is necessary to ensure that they get re-elected. This means serving the interests of those who vote, not those who do not. Taken this way, voter turnout suddenly becomes rational, no matter who gets elected, because it demonstrates group strength. Why do so many policies favor older Americans and harm younger Americans (think of the debt) because older Americans vote and younger Americans do not.
Random Issues:
Is Voting Rational?
But there is another factor that encourages people to not vote. Not voting is rational, which means of course that voting is irrational. If we assume that it is rational for someone to perform an act with the expectation that it will have an impact (like studying for a test with the expectation that this will lead to a better grade). Then this assumes that we vote with the expectation that our individual vote is necessary in order to get someone elected. If we had not voted, then the result would have been different. But in almost every election, this is not the case, and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be the case in elections like those for the president. If you supported John McCain in 2008 but did not vote, you aren't walking around kicking yourself because your single vote would not have made a difference in the election. So the interesting question is why voters choose to behave irrationally. Why do people vote even though they know there is no way that their single vote matters.
- Wikipedia: Voter Turnout.
Do Elections Actually Produce Undisputed Winners?
Different elections actually have a tendency to produce different winners.
Voting Behavior
So let's say that you have choosen to do the irrational thing and have decided to go vote. What factors guide your decision? Research suggest that there are three primary factors guiding the decision about who to vote for.
- Party Identification
- Candidate Characteristics
- Issue
Party Identification: Though party identification has declined over time, it is still an important determinant of the vote. More people are indeed calling themselves independent and splitting their votes, but people who identify with either major political party are highly likely to vote for candidates from that party. Being Democrat or Republican still gives voters a general idea about where the candidates stand on the issues and if one knows nothing else about the candidates it can still be a useful cost saving way to make a decision about who to support. Nevertheless, party identification lags far behind the levels of strength it enjoyed before candidates could forge their own relatonships with the public.
Candidate Characteristics: As mentioned above in the discussion of primaries, the primary process has brought candidates to the forefront of elections. While running for their own party's primaries candidates are able to establish their own identities with the general public, not just those who identify with their party. Strong candidates have appeal that transcends their own party and reaches out not only to independents but to members of the other party. Reagan, for example, was popular among some Democrats and Obama earned some Republican votes. Their appeal can be based on personality characteristics which are much more easily conveyed through television and online. FDR's calm during the Great Depression, and translated in the Fire Side Chats, made him a more appealing candidate than the more uptight, reserved Hoover.
Sometimes these characteristics can include superficial things such as height and hair. Recent presidential elections have been won, almost always, by the taller cnadidate and/or the candidate with the more impressive head of hair. Short, bald candidates are at a disadvantag, seriously.
Issues: Over the years the Democratic and Republican Parties have developed reputations for being better at certain things than the other party. This has an impact on electoral choice, espacially among independent that tend to not have a preset idea about which party they will vote for. Republicans tend to be trusted more during times of military crisis, or when America feels under attack, while Democrats do better during times of economic crisis. Applying this to recent elections, once the 9/11 attacks occurred, the Republican Party gained an advantage in the following election, as did Democrats when the housing bubble burst prior to the 2008 elections. This suggests that elections may be decided more by events than candidates or political tactics.
Managing Elections
The Constitution, in several places, grants states the power to conduct and manage elections to the states. In Texas, the Secretary of State's Elections Division has this responsibility. Many of the specific responsibilities, including registering voters, organizing voter precincts, running election day and counting ballots, is given to the county.
In order to both facilitate access to the polls and to ensure fair voting practices, the national government has become increasingly involved in assisting the conduction of elections nationwide. Most recently, in the wake of the controversial election of 2000, the Help America Vote Act was passed, which created the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission in order to implement this assistance.
- Texas Secretary of State: Elections Division.
- U.S. Elections Assistance Commission.
- Home Page: Federal Election Commission.
- Wikipedia: Federal Election Commission.
- EAC: Election Management Guidelines.
- Wikipedia: Help America Vote Act.
Regulating Elections
Elections cost a lot of money. This is probably not news to you. House races can easily cost over a million dollars and Senate races generally run more than 10 million dollars. Many cost far more. In the 2008 presidential election Obama raised almost $750 million.
Large sums are not new in elections, neither are questions about the propriety of these expenditures. Below is a list of the various laws passed by the U.S. Congress adressing the following issues (as defined by the Federal Election Commission):
- Limit contributions to ensure that wealthy individuals and special interest groups did not have a disproportionate influence on Federal elections;
The problem with limiting campaign expenditures however is that those affected by these laws have successfully argued that doing so limits their free speech rights. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruled that campaign expenditures are equivalent to free speech since the purpose of the expeditures is to communicate political ideas to the general public.
A Short History
Buckley v. Valeo
Elections
campaign finance
political action committees
527 committees
political campaign
Political Campaigns
2008 U.S. Elections
Representation
Elections
Elections
republicanism
voting
sortition
Past Written Questions
1. Elections are central to democracy, but why is this the case? Read the material below and detail what elections are supposed to do in a democratic system. Are these purposes being served currently? Why or why not?
2. Some argue that the American electoral system places voters too far from the action and that we should have, instead, a more direct system such as an initiative or referendum system on the national level. Explore this idea and detail the advantages and disadvantages of doing so.
3. Over the course of American history suffrage has been expanded substantively, but there are still some limitations on who can vote. What are these limitations and what are the arguments for and against further expanding suffrage? Are these similar to the arguments for and against previsou expansions of suffrage?
4. As you hopefully know, there are elections currently underway, mostly local. Do some research and list the most topical races in your local area and the stakes involved in the outcomes.